Let us just call a spade as spade and Canonical Orthodoxy the Body of Christ. Those who want to be part of it are free to join. Those who are too proud, exclude themselves.

Of course, not everything goes right in Canonical Orthodoxy. Myself I am very worried about practises like kneeling on Sunday and between Pascha and Pentecost, too much tolerance for circumcision or fasting from midnight to midnight, rather than evening to evening. But still, there is onl one Church. Sometimes, when you swim, the drift is hard. But when you are not in water, you are not swimming at all.

Let us just call a spade as spade and Canonical Orthodoxy the Body of Christ. Those who want to be part of it are free to join. Those who are too proud, exclude themselves.

Of course, not everything goes right in Canonical Orthodoxy. Myself I am very worried about practises like kneeling on Sunday and between Pascha and Pentecost, too much tolerance for circumcision or fasting from midnight to midnight, rather than evening to evening. But still, there is onl one Church. Sometimes, when you swim, the drift is hard. But when you are not in water, you are not swimming at all.

Let us just call a spade as spade and Canonical Orthodoxy the Body of Christ. Those who want to be part of it are free to join. Those who are too proud, exclude themselves.

Of course, not everything goes right in Canonical Orthodoxy. Myself I am very worried about practises like kneeling on Sunday and between Pascha and Pentecost, too much tolerance for circumcision or fasting from midnight to midnight, rather than evening to evening. But still, there is onl one Church. Sometimes, when you swim, the drift is hard. But when you are not in water, you are not swimming at all.

Let's call a spade a spade. You are from Alexandria which expelled St. Nectarios and never apologized for falsely accusing him.

What the OCA has done is similar to what Alexandria did to St. Nectarios. There was no spiritual court convened in the cases of St. Nectarios and Met. Moses. Why? Both men had their reputations destroyed. And what was their crime or violation of canons? NONE. Absolutely none. Yet they were both forced to resign. That letter issued by the OCA synod was abhorrent; it was not done in charity. Both men were falsely accused.

Metropolitan Jonah has not said he was falsely accused. As I have written elsewhere, if what you are saying is true and that he signed the letter under duress, than he has indeed violated the canons and his consecration oath to do nothing under compulsion. You damn him even when you try to defend him!

The fact is that Metropolitan Jonah may very well have violated numerous canons, yet the Holy Synod could also have kept this confidential so as not to force his deposition. You do not know the whole story, Maria.

Consider for a moment the manner in which Metropolitan Hilarion, whom the nuns hold blameless, released them. He released them back to their bishop... in Greece. Could he do such a thing without the agreement of the bishop in Greece. No, unless he was refusing to receive them from Greece, meaning that he had not received them from the OCA. This could only mean that the manner of their reception was irregular.

Let's call a spade a spade. You are from Alexandria which expelled St. Nectarios and never apologized for falsely accusing him.

What the OCA has done is similar to what Alexandria did to St. Nectarios. There was no spiritual court convened in the cases of St. Nectarios and Met. Moses. Why? Both men had their reputations destroyed. And what was their crime or violation of canons? NONE. Absolutely none. Yet they were both forced to resign. That letter issued by the OCA synod was abhorrent; it was not done in charity. Both men were falsely accused.

Patriarch Sophronios did not accuse St. Nektarios of anything. He instructed him to return to Greece in order to keep the peace in Egypt. There were some priests who did not get along with him. In this case, it was better to send away one person rather than a dozen. The Patriarchate did not officially accuse him of anything - individuals did, and there never was an investigation, so I have no idea whether the accusations were correct or not, and probably there is no way we can know today.

As for the letter of the OCA, I have no idea. Many facts are still unknown to the wider public in general and me in particular, so I refrain from commenting on that issue. But the Church is the Church, and yes, some of its clergymen are unworthy. To say that the Church is only where there is a perfect clergy would be donatism.

There is a bishop draperod who gives a huge biography, but that does not make him legitimate.

Some people even in high CEO positions have lied on their biographies.

If you look at the official biography of Met. Jonah, he omits a lot of details. After all, Met. Jonah is a true monk. Monks in a spirit of humility will not share details of their past lives. Occam's razor: Less is best.

If you look at the official biography of Met. Jonah, he omits a lot of details. After all, Met. Jonah is a true monk. Monks in a spirit of humility will not share details of their past lives. Occam's razor: Less is best.

There is a bishop draperod who gives a huge biography, but that does not make him legitimate.

Never heard of him. Can you enlighten me?

Bishop Draperod got that name when he had a photo taken of him holding a drapery rod. It was hilarious. He has since removed that photo from his website. He the bishop of Pasadena according to his extensive biography with medals and fancy certificates.

If you look at the official biography of Met. Jonah, he omits a lot of details. After all, Met. Jonah is a true monk. Monks in a spirit of humility will not share details of their past lives. Occam's razor: Less is best.

Promoting reincarnation?

No, I am not promoting reincarnation.

You are really sharp tonight.Notice I used the plural MONKS with the reference to their past lives.Good catch as most of our sentences have some ambiguity.

There is a bishop draperod who gives a huge biography, but that does not make him legitimate.

Never heard of him. Can you enlighten me?

Bishop Draperod got that name when he had a photo taken of him holding a drapery rod. It was hilarious. He has since removed that photo from his website. He the bishop of Pasadena according to his extensive biography with medals and fancy certificates.

If you look at the official biography of Met. Jonah, he omits a lot of details. After all, Met. Jonah is a true monk. Monks in a spirit of humility will not share details of their past lives. Occam's razor: Less is best.

Promoting reincarnation?

No, I am not promoting reincarnation.

You are really sharp tonight.Notice I used the plural MONKS with the reference to their past lives.Good catch as most of our sentences have some ambiguity.

Changing jurisdictions is not without danger. Those who leave the OCA and then decide otherwise because of the sparsity of parishes in the GOC face one year's penance upon their return to the OCA. I know several who did change jurisdictions, and they are still struggling today.

You have not changed jurisdictions. You (in secular terms) leaved one religious organisation and enterred the another one that is quite antagonistic torwards your previous one. Yet you still give some advices for members of the organisation you left.

One might suspect that you purposely give back advice and create a havoc to discourage people from the OCA.

If your intentions are sincere it'd be better if you stop discussing OCA matters either way. You do not openly criticise internal matters of the company or organisation you have just left (and previously were supporting) - some things are just not proper and in accordance with the etiquette.

Live nad let live (or let die).

I was losing my salvation in the OCA.

You relinquished salvation by separating from the Church.

Quote

IF my friends were to be truly fed up with all the liturgical innovations with "altar" girls/handmaidens, the Sign of Peace, and the passing of antidoron to non-believers, and IF they were to be disgusted with the ecumenism -- the OCA membership in the National Council of Churches (NCC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC), then, yes, I would say run (don't walk) to the nearest GOC parish.

If you are willing to make a schism over such trifles, then you'll eventually find problems wherever you go. The next thing you need to look for is a church that expels all non-believers after the litany of the catechumens.

By the way, I'd like to see you find evidence of a universal Church tradition forbidding antidoron to non-Orthodox. Also, what doctrine is violated by such a sharing?

Quote

Nevertheless, something must be done about all the abuse that is allowed in all the OCA dioceses except the DOS, and the double standards where active open homosexuals can receive the Holy Mysteries, but pregnant ladies are penanced and almost urged into abortions.

But your new religion teaches that the OCA has no Holy Mysteries, so why does it matter to whom they are given? After all, in your view, it's just mushy bread.

I have not left the Holy Orthodox Church. Neither am I schismatic. Our Priests and Bishops are truly Orthodox.

Furthermore, the GOC (Kallinikos) does not teach that the OCA lacks Holy Mysteries and is totally graceless. That false accusation seems to be part of Bishop Gregory of Colorado's false teachings, not the GOCs. Bishop Gregory also teaches that the OCA, Antiochians, Greek Orthodox, Ukrainians, HOCNA and the GOC are all graceless. He believes that his is the only Orthodox Church. Talk about cult mentality!

For example, when an OCA member is baptized into the OCA, that baptism is accepted by the GOC as long as it remains Trinitarian with a triple immersion. However, those adult OCA members who have had water poured over their heads using a baby baptismal fount will be baptized by triple immersion. When an OCA baptized and married couple is received into the GOC, they are not remarried, but they are chrismated.

Perhaps Fr Anastasios can clarify -- I would be very interested in him doing so -- but I believe he would agree that the GOC is in schism from "World Orthodoxy" (or, perhaps, that "World Orthodoxy" is in schism from it). The point being, there is most definitely schism. In fact, that's kind of THE point.

Your post seems to bait and proselytize too. In addition, by inferring that I am a schismatic, you are getting very close to violating Father Anastasios Hudson's Administrative Directive that we are not to refer to each other using the term, "schismatic."

Actually, Maria, I need to call you out for misrepresenting that administrative directive. We are not to call each other "schismatic" when doing so is not relevant to the topic of discussion. At some times, however, one's relationship to the Church is relevant to the discussion, as is the case on this thread. The application of the term "schismatic" may in fact be appropriate at such times.

With regard to HOTCA and their view of the New Calendarists as "graceless," here is a snippet from their own website:

Quote

Finally, the canonical Church of Greece, which comprises about 70% of the Old Calendarist movement, maintains the traditional position that the New Calendar is graceless; but actual opinion in the Church is not necessarily unilateral on this question. Its bishops reject the New Calendar church not so much because they view it as graceless, but because it has abandoned the truth. Since it does not adhere to an Orthodox confession of faith, it is impossible for the True Orthodox to recognize it, a schismatic and hereticizing body, as the Mother Church, or officially to declare that beyond a shadow of doubt it possesses sacramental grace—as Cyprian teaches.

So basically, the official position is that we're "graceless" (and this position was proclaimed several times by them over the 20th century) but it is now tolerated for some people to be agnostics without being tossed out of the Old Calendar church.

All the same, we're still "a schismatic and hereticizing body", so the question still stands as to why Maria continues to complain about bad conduct by some of our priests and slander our bishops.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Fr. Giryus remains a member of the Orthodox Church. He is in communion with the OCA and also has familiarity with the situation in question. He also isn't screaming for the OCA to be disbanded.

Fr. Giryus seems to be ignoring the problems that are rampant in the OCA perhaps not in the Diocese of the South right now, but everywhere else. The DOS needs prayers that they might find a truly Orthodox Bishop, otherwise they may be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, I am speaking out because my friends have been silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: telling them to be blindly obedient, to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: improper jokes during communion, openly homosexuals receiving communion, etc.

You keep repeating very serious allegations that are partly your eyewitness and partly hearsay. I am forced to invoke the following rule: "* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency."

Therefore, I am requesting that you provide corroborating evidence for each of the specific allegations that you have made. I have isolated them by the letters (a) through (f) below:

"my friends have been (a) silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: (b) telling them to be blindly obedient, (c) to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and (d) to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: (e) improper jokes during communion, (f) openly homosexuals receiving communion..."

You have 72 hours to provide us with the requested input. If you not have the corroborating evidence yet, you must provide us with the source whence your allegation came. If you need to name names, please obtain their permission first.

Until you have provided the requested information, you may not repeat such allegations from now on. If you do, you will be put on post moderation.

The more I reflect on everything that has happened, the less comfortable I am concerning how Metropolitan Jonah was treated.

Reflect on "everything that has happened", or learn more about what happened? To reflect on something is to meditate on a body of knowledge that remains static--you're not acquiring more information, you're merely ruminating on the information you already have, which may not be much. I think it much better you strive to learn more about what happened. Then if you feel increasingly uncomfortable, it will at least be based on a greater knowledge of the situation.

Reflect on "everything that has happened", or learn more about what happened? To reflect on something is to meditate on a body of knowledge that remains static--you're not acquiring more information, you're merely ruminating on the information you already have, which may not be much. I think it much better you strive to learn more about what happened. Then if you feel increasingly uncomfortable, it will at least be based on a greater knowledge of the situation

good advice.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

With the exception of Bishop Michael, all the other bishops apparently have baggage.

I just do not trust the OCA Synod any longer. With the history of deposing, retiring, or forcing an existing Metropolitan into oblivion and then not allowing them to commune in any parish save one (excommunication), what is to prevent Bishop Michael if he should receive the white thingy from being forced out too. There is a pattern of forced retirements.

Frankly, I wish the entire OCA Synod would disband. Enough is enough.

Maria - ALL of us are imperfect and ALL of us have baggage. That is why we need the Church!

I don't know how many OCA priests are on this board. I can only say this: I have attended OCA parishes (as a layman and served occasionally as a priest), went to an OCA seminary, and have very close friends in the OCA. perhaps I am entitled to care... maybe just a little bit? Please, may I?

The problems at HVM go back to Bishop Tikhon, and you should know that. The present choir director has hired (at her own expense) several heterodox (who don't receive communion), but that's largely because the parish continues to twindle because of the failure of the last two rectors (did you go to the good-bye potluck?). They are trying to keep two liturgies (Slavonic and English) with full, four-part music, with a tiny pool of people who can sing and an UNPAID director. You should be ashamed of what you said here

As for who receives communion and why or why not, I can tell you that there are many circumstances in which appearances can be deceiving. Still, it is not up to you to decide. The scariest situations are usually with people who have no outward appearance of anything untoward.

You may have stood in the choir, but I've served on the altar at HVM. Archbishop Benjamin can be frustratingly patient despite his jolly demeanor. The truth is, he shows few of his cards, and he certainly won't show them to you. You and I know that all of the players have their flaws, but you can't lay all the blame on Archbishop Benjamin. By the way, His Eminence is not the 'heir apparent'... if you listened to more OCA folks, you'd hear that many are going to Parma supporting Bishop Michael because of his demonstrated track record as a long-time priest and administrator of STOTS.

I was 'outspoken' during the 'time of troubles' of the Antiochian Archdiocese, and I will continue to speak up when I see problems. If you have a problem with me commenting, you can come visit me in Torrance.

What fascinates me is the fact that there are two outspoken Antiochian Priests who are going to bat for the OCA Synod. Yet few OCA priests are speaking out. Why do certain Antiochians feel the need to butt into matters not concerning them?

We who are/were in the OCA are facing/faced serious problems that the current batch in the OCA Synod have failed to address, especially Bishop Benjamin who is the heir apparent to be the next Metropolitan.

Here in Los Angeles, AB Benjamin's stronghold, communion is given to active unrepentant homosexuals, but heterosexuals who fail and who conceive out of wedlock are penanced for a year to three years because everyone could see the pregnant lady's swollen abdomen. Why the discrepancy?

Is sin in secret somehow less wrong? That is the impression given. I congratulated the woman for having the courage to bring that beautiful child to term as she did not give into pressure to abort, so that she could receive communion without anyone knowing about her problem. In addition, active unrepentant Jewish gays are allowed to sing at the OCA Cathedral in Los Angeles. I sang in that choir, so I know first hand about these matters.

Thank you Father G. for your corrective. I am glad that you did it because I may not have been as diplomatic as you. Some of you may know that I am a PK (priest's son) and thus I have seen and heard many things that the usual lay person is not exposed to. My point is that it is far too easy to misunderstand or misinterpret something that one sees or hears of.

For example, there was a report on Monomakhos last year or so about girls serving in the Altar. You can imagine how that brought out all the super defenders of Orthodoxy to the fore, who were positively foaming at the mouth about such an innovation. It turned out that these girls did not serve in the Altar at all; they were seated on the front left pew and joined the great procession bearing candles and went back to their pew after the Entrance, having never been in the Altar. In my church, we have "handmaidens" who serve the zakuska, the blessed bread and wine to help consume the Gifts that had just been received from the priest or deacon. The handmaidens also have a part during the Holy Friday services, when welcoming a hierarch, etc... Nothing innovative or strange about it.

Another thing that some folks get super excited about perceived actions or non-actions by their bishop (particularly the latter). They simply do not have the whole picture: a bishop's action may not be visible because, as it is usually the case, it is private matter between him and his deputy, the local priest. The bishop's action may have been communicated to the Parish Council and not sent out as an encyclical (do we really need to have one of these for every thing of personal interest to us?). The bishop may be coordinating his response with the Holy Synod, etc.

The use of this media, i.e. the internet - to spread half truths, sometimes malicious lies and deliberate agendas is surely not limited to our beloved Orthodox Church - just witness current events. I fear that the unrestrained use of this media will lead to the ultimate erosion of free speech rights - not by government 'diktat' but by public demand brought on by inflammatory abuses leading to uncontrollable reactions - whether within the walls of the church or out in the public square. We need to blather less and pray more - myself included.

I also wanted to note that is wrong to publically speculate as to why didn't x or y get this penance or why is z or w allowed to 'get away' with this or that. Actually it is beyond wrong to do so - it reeks of the sin of the Pharisee and evinces a lack of true humility. If you have a problem with what you PERCEIVE to be the case in your parish - first, speak IN PRIVATE with your priest. Second - if you are not satisfied with how that interaction worked out go to your regional diocesan clergy representative - be it your dean or whatever. Third - if still upset, write a letter with proper respect (maybe not of the person but of the OFFICE that person occupies; if necessary offer to meet in person with your Bishop at his convenience. You don't start out by making assumptions (remember Oscar Madison and Felix Ungers classic exchange on the meaning of the word assume from the 'Odd Couple' - google this if the reference is too obscure or not contemporary enough for some) and reaching conclusions from such assumptions.

The last thing to do, and more often than not the wrong thing to do, is to start off by playing the role of Luther and posting your 99 points online, at a parish meeting or whatever.

I know that modern America in particular doesn't seem to operate that way nowadays, but the Church is not - as most love to remind us all of the time - a particularly modern institution.

I also have to say that many of us who are offering our outside comments on the OCA's current struggles do have a stake in the outcome. As Orthodox Christians - either clergy or informed laity - in full communion with the OCA we believe that what happens to one of our brothers or sisters in Christ will impact all of us. Today, more than ever, we are not for the most part, jurisdictional islands operating next to, but oblivious to the fate of each other. Those days are generally gone - witness the positive things being done - slowly I will concede, by the EA in terms of beginning to organize our missionary efforts, our administrative rules and so on in a proper, canonical and in a manner suited to the contemporary experience - as has been the case throughout the centuries as our Church has found herself in any number of different societal, political and cultural settings - AND ENDURED.

Fr. Giryus remains a member of the Orthodox Church. He is in communion with the OCA and also has familiarity with the situation in question. He also isn't screaming for the OCA to be disbanded.

Fr. Giryus seems to be ignoring the problems that are rampant in the OCA perhaps not in the Diocese of the South right now, but everywhere else. The DOS needs prayers that they might find a truly Orthodox Bishop, otherwise they may be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, I am speaking out because my friends have been silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: telling them to be blindly obedient, to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: improper jokes during communion, openly homosexuals receiving communion, etc.

You keep repeating very serious allegations that are partly your eyewitness and partly hearsay. I am forced to invoke the following rule: "* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency."

Therefore, I am requesting that you provide corroborating evidence for each of the specific allegations that you have made. I have isolated them by the letters (a) through (f) below:

"my friends have been (a) silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: (b) telling them to be blindly obedient, (c) to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and (d) to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: (e) improper jokes during communion, (f) openly homosexuals receiving communion..."

You have 72 hours to provide us with the requested input. If you not have the corroborating evidence yet, you must provide us with the source whence your allegation came. If you need to name names, please obtain their permission first.

Until you have provided the requested information, you may not repeat such allegations from now on. If you do, you will be put on post moderation.

Thanks, Carl Kraeff, Section Moderator

To any who have been offended or scandalized by anything I have submitted to this site, my deepest apology.

Fr. Giryus remains a member of the Orthodox Church. He is in communion with the OCA and also has familiarity with the situation in question. He also isn't screaming for the OCA to be disbanded.

Fr. Giryus seems to be ignoring the problems that are rampant in the OCA perhaps not in the Diocese of the South right now, but everywhere else. The DOS needs prayers that they might find a truly Orthodox Bishop, otherwise they may be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, I am speaking out because my friends have been silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: telling them to be blindly obedient, to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: improper jokes during communion, openly homosexuals receiving communion, etc.

You keep repeating very serious allegations that are partly your eyewitness and partly hearsay. I am forced to invoke the following rule: "* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency."

Therefore, I am requesting that you provide corroborating evidence for each of the specific allegations that you have made. I have isolated them by the letters (a) through (f) below:

"my friends have been (a) silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: (b) telling them to be blindly obedient, (c) to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and (d) to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: (e) improper jokes during communion, (f) openly homosexuals receiving communion..."

You have 72 hours to provide us with the requested input. If you not have the corroborating evidence yet, you must provide us with the source whence your allegation came. If you need to name names, please obtain their permission first.

Until you have provided the requested information, you may not repeat such allegations from now on. If you do, you will be put on post moderation.

Thanks, Carl Kraeff, Section Moderator

eTo any who have been offended or scandalized by anything I have submitted to this site, my deepest apology.

Maria and I have been talking via PM for the past three days. I am convinced that she will find a way to make things right. Indeed, she is coordinating her final input with her jurisdictional authorities. I am therefore satisfied with her apology to date and her private assurances to me that she will not make such allegations in the future. Thanks, Second Chance

The more I reflect on everything that has happened, the less comfortable I am concerning how Metropolitan Jonah was treated.

Reflect on "everything that has happened", or learn more about what happened? To reflect on something is to meditate on a body of knowledge that remains static--you're not acquiring more information, you're merely ruminating on the information you already have, which may not be much. I think it much better you strive to learn more about what happened. Then if you feel increasingly uncomfortable, it will at least be based on a greater knowledge of the situation.

Both actually, but thank you anyway for the refresher in English vocabulary. I can assure you I remember my lessons from Junior High.

Fr. Giryus remains a member of the Orthodox Church. He is in communion with the OCA and also has familiarity with the situation in question. He also isn't screaming for the OCA to be disbanded.

Fr. Giryus seems to be ignoring the problems that are rampant in the OCA perhaps not in the Diocese of the South right now, but everywhere else. The DOS needs prayers that they might find a truly Orthodox Bishop, otherwise they may be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, I am speaking out because my friends have been silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: telling them to be blindly obedient, to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: improper jokes during communion, openly homosexuals receiving communion, etc.

You keep repeating very serious allegations that are partly your eyewitness and partly hearsay. I am forced to invoke the following rule: "* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency."

Therefore, I am requesting that you provide corroborating evidence for each of the specific allegations that you have made. I have isolated them by the letters (a) through (f) below:

"my friends have been (a) silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: (b) telling them to be blindly obedient, (c) to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and (d) to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: (e) improper jokes during communion, (f) openly homosexuals receiving communion..."

You have 72 hours to provide us with the requested input. If you not have the corroborating evidence yet, you must provide us with the source whence your allegation came. If you need to name names, please obtain their permission first.

Until you have provided the requested information, you may not repeat such allegations from now on. If you do, you will be put on post moderation.

Thanks, Carl Kraeff, Section Moderator

eTo any who have been offended or scandalized by anything I have submitted to this site, my deepest apology.

Maria and I have been talking via PM for the past three days. I am convinced that she will find a way to make things right. Indeed, she is coordinating her final input with her jurisdictional authorities. I am therefore satisfied with her apology to date and her private assurances to me that she will not make such allegations in the future. Thanks, Second Chance

Maria seems to be nothing if not sincere and well meaning. I hope this don't fall into commentary on moderatorial decisions.

Fr. Giryus remains a member of the Orthodox Church. He is in communion with the OCA and also has familiarity with the situation in question. He also isn't screaming for the OCA to be disbanded.

Fr. Giryus seems to be ignoring the problems that are rampant in the OCA perhaps not in the Diocese of the South right now, but everywhere else. The DOS needs prayers that they might find a truly Orthodox Bishop, otherwise they may be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, I am speaking out because my friends have been silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: telling them to be blindly obedient, to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: improper jokes during communion, openly homosexuals receiving communion, etc.

You keep repeating very serious allegations that are partly your eyewitness and partly hearsay. I am forced to invoke the following rule: "* References & Proof -- Occasionally a moderator will make a formal request (i.e. in green font, explicitly stating that they're asking as a mod and not a user) for clarification of a point, references to support a point, or "proof" of an assertion made in the course of discussion. Sometimes this request will come with a "time limit" or other stipulation requesting expediency."

Therefore, I am requesting that you provide corroborating evidence for each of the specific allegations that you have made. I have isolated them by the letters (a) through (f) below:

"my friends have been (a) silenced by their priests who have been preaching from the pulpits: (b) telling them to be blindly obedient, (c) to ignore this forum and all the internet "gossip," and (d) to ignore the problems that plague the OCA: (e) improper jokes during communion, (f) openly homosexuals receiving communion..."

You have 72 hours to provide us with the requested input. If you not have the corroborating evidence yet, you must provide us with the source whence your allegation came. If you need to name names, please obtain their permission first.

Until you have provided the requested information, you may not repeat such allegations from now on. If you do, you will be put on post moderation.

Thanks, Carl Kraeff, Section Moderator

eTo any who have been offended or scandalized by anything I have submitted to this site, my deepest apology.

Maria and I have been talking via PM for the past three days. I am convinced that she will find a way to make things right. Indeed, she is coordinating her final input with her jurisdictional authorities. I am therefore satisfied with her apology to date and her private assurances to me that she will not make such allegations in the future. Thanks, Second Chance

Maria seems to be nothing if not sincere and well meaning. I hope this don't fall into commentary on moderatorial decisions.

I am just saying.

I am interpreting your comment to be nothing more than a compliment of a fellow poster.

There is letter that has appeared on Monomakhos, from someone who says he is +Jonah's lawyer: Rev. Canon Charles H. Nalls, J.D., M.Th., S.T.B., S.T.L., Vice-Chancellor of the St Elias Seminary and Graduate School, which is headed by Most Rev. Seraphim, Archbishop of the Eparchy of Old Dominion and senior member of the Holy synod of the America's.

Thanks for the link. It appears that The Reverent Canon Nalls belongs to the Anglican Catholic Church, Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States. His bio does not list his employment by the St Elias Seminary and Graduate School, but I suppose it would not be odd for an Anglican to be so employed by the Old Dominion Eparchy of the Holy Synod of the Americas. All along I was thinking that +Jonah had possibly hired a vagante as his lawyer; it turns out he is just an Anglican Catholic. My bad.

Can you imagine if he had hired a canonical Orthodox Christian to be his lawyer? How might it have further complicated relations between the jurisdictions if a lawyer from the GOA, for example, were to advise and represent him?

I just saw Metropolitan Jonah at St. John the Baptist in DC on Sunday. He concelebrated with Met. Hilarion and was commemorated in the liturgy as "His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah of Washinton and New York" if I remember correctly. I don't know if that helps quell the rumor mongering or inflames it. :/

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I just saw Metropolitan Jonah at St. John the Baptist in DC on Sunday. He concelebrated with Met. Hilarion and was commemorated in the liturgy as "His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah of Washinton and New York" if I remember correctly. I don't know if that helps quell the rumor mongering or inflames it. :/

In Christ,Andrew

That is very interesting. My impression was that once a OCA Primate resigned, he would be called His Eminence and not His Beautitude (only when OCA Primate retired in office, would he would still be called His Beautitude). I would also note that +Jonah formally resigned as Primate and Metropolitan Bishop (Archbishop) as he asked for another episcopal assignment; ergo, he is no longer Metropolitan of All America and Archbishop of Washington. I wonder why he is allowing himself to be called by the wrong honorifics and titles? I also wonder why ROCOR folks, who are such sticklers for just about everything, are doing this?

Can you imagine if he had hired a canonical Orthodox Christian to be his lawyer? How might it have further complicated relations between the jurisdictions if a lawyer from the GOA, for example, were to advise and represent him?

First, he should not have lawyered up. Second, it just looks and smells bad when he goes outside Orthodoxy. Does he not have any sense of ecclesiastical propriety?

Can you imagine if he had hired a canonical Orthodox Christian to be his lawyer? How might it have further complicated relations between the jurisdictions if a lawyer from the GOA, for example, were to advise and represent him?

First, he should not have lawyered up. Second, it just looks and smells bad when he goes outside Orthodoxy. Does he not have any sense of ecclesiastical propriety?

Oh, has a lawsuit been filed? Will the case be judged by an unbeliever? I did not know. Otherwise, meh.

I pay an accountant to do my taxes and an electrician to do my wiring, and I'll pay a lawyer to sort through the fine print should I ever need one (God forbid!), even if it happened to concern a contractual issue between friends. It's just expertise.

As to what sort of sense he has, I can't guess, except to observe that he often spoke off-the-cuff and had to back-pedal, so having a lawyer speak for him is arguably an improvement.

Can you imagine if he had hired a canonical Orthodox Christian to be his lawyer? How might it have further complicated relations between the jurisdictions if a lawyer from the GOA, for example, were to advise and represent him?

First, he should not have lawyered up. Second, it just looks and smells bad when he goes outside Orthodoxy. Does he not have any sense of ecclesiastical propriety?

Oh, has a lawsuit been filed? Will the case be judged by an unbeliever? I did not know. Otherwise, meh.

I pay an accountant to do my taxes and an electrician to do my wiring, and I'll pay a lawyer to sort through the fine print should I ever need one (God forbid!), even if it happened to concern a contractual issue between friends. It's just expertise.

As to what sort of sense he has, I can't guess, except to observe that he often spoke off-the-cuff and had to back-pedal, so having a lawyer speak for him is arguably an improvement.

About the lawyering, what you say makes sense to me. As you know, however, it is something that the Scriptures talk against. Not a good place for a bishop to be--in contravention to the Holy Scriptures that he is supposed to be upholding. OTH, perhaps he is already thinking about quitting, becoming a regular guy?

The second point I made was to point out in the gentlest possible way that if you hold yourself up to be an Orthodox bishop, you do not cavort with the heterodox.

Can you imagine if he had hired a canonical Orthodox Christian to be his lawyer? How might it have further complicated relations between the jurisdictions if a lawyer from the GOA, for example, were to advise and represent him?

First, he should not have lawyered up. Second, it just looks and smells bad when he goes outside Orthodoxy. Does he not have any sense of ecclesiastical propriety?

Oh, has a lawsuit been filed? Will the case be judged by an unbeliever? I did not know. Otherwise, meh.

I pay an accountant to do my taxes and an electrician to do my wiring, and I'll pay a lawyer to sort through the fine print should I ever need one (God forbid!), even if it happened to concern a contractual issue between friends. It's just expertise.

As to what sort of sense he has, I can't guess, except to observe that he often spoke off-the-cuff and had to back-pedal, so having a lawyer speak for him is arguably an improvement.

About the lawyering, what you say makes sense to me. As you know, however, it is something that the Scriptures talk against. Not a good place for a bishop to be--in contravention to the Holy Scriptures that he is supposed to be upholding. OTH, perhaps he is already thinking about quitting, becoming a regular guy?

The second point I made was to point out in the gentlest possible way that if you hold yourself up to be an Orthodox bishop, you do not cavort with the heterodox.

Sigh... the gentlest of phrasing will not convince those who would return Metropolitan Jonah to the 'helm' of the OCA that such a desire is not likely to come to fruition - at least not without a schism within the OCA resulting in the 'dispatching' of a majority of the current Synod and what would probably be a century's worth of ostracization from the rest of North American Orthodoxy of what would remain.

No matter how much self-loathing the primary mover of Monomakos has regarding his own Greek heritage and no matter how much he and his followers wish it were so, administrative unity of North American Orthodoxy is just not going to happen on their terms and the OCA's synod knows and accepts that reality.(That is pretty clear from the communique signed last week by all Bishops present, including the four representing the OCA.) I sense that is the real agenda behind the outward fight going publicly. Sadly, I really don't think that the Metropolitan himself is really part of this 'dream' but is just the man caught up in events.

Frankly, my legal mind has a tough time finding a way to fit the relationship between an Orthodox bishop and his Orthodox jurisdiction into any legally cognizable construction of American contract law. I would be shocked if an American civil court in any secular jurisdiction were to find a basis for a sustainable cause of action which could be maintained under current case law and which could result in an award of monetary damages.

Can you imagine if he had hired a canonical Orthodox Christian to be his lawyer? How might it have further complicated relations between the jurisdictions if a lawyer from the GOA, for example, were to advise and represent him?

First, he should not have lawyered up. Second, it just looks and smells bad when he goes outside Orthodoxy. Does he not have any sense of ecclesiastical propriety?

Oh, has a lawsuit been filed? Will the case be judged by an unbeliever? I did not know. Otherwise, meh.

I pay an accountant to do my taxes and an electrician to do my wiring, and I'll pay a lawyer to sort through the fine print should I ever need one (God forbid!), even if it happened to concern a contractual issue between friends. It's just expertise.

As to what sort of sense he has, I can't guess, except to observe that he often spoke off-the-cuff and had to back-pedal, so having a lawyer speak for him is arguably an improvement.

About the lawyering, what you say makes sense to me. As you know, however, it is something that the Scriptures talk against. Not a good place for a bishop to be--in contravention to the Holy Scriptures that he is supposed to be upholding. OTH, perhaps he is already thinking about quitting, becoming a regular guy?

The second point I made was to point out in the gentlest possible way that if you hold yourself up to be an Orthodox bishop, you do not cavort with the heterodox.

Sigh... the gentlest of phrasing will not convince those who would return Metropolitan Jonah to the 'helm' of the OCA that such a desire is not likely to come to fruition - at least not without a schism within the OCA resulting in the 'dispatching' of a majority of the current Synod and what would probably be a century's worth of ostracization from the rest of North American Orthodoxy of what would remain.

No matter how much self-loathing the primary mover of Monomakos has regarding his own Greek heritage and no matter how much he and his followers wish it were so, administrative unity of North American Orthodoxy is just not going to happen on their terms and the OCA's synod knows and accepts that reality.(That is pretty clear from the communique signed last week by all Bishops present, including the four representing the OCA.) I sense that is the real agenda behind the outward fight going publicly. Sadly, I really don't think that the Metropolitan himself is really part of this 'dream' but is just the man caught up in events.

Frankly, my legal mind has a tough time finding a way to fit the relationship between an Orthodox bishop and his Orthodox jurisdiction into any legally cognizable construction of American contract law. I would be shocked if an American civil court in any secular jurisdiction were to find a basis for a sustainable cause of action which could be maintained under current case law and which could result in an award of monetary damages.

Give that man a seee-gar!

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

First, he should not have lawyered up. Second, it just looks and smells bad when he goes outside Orthodoxy. Does he not have any sense of ecclesiastical propriety?

Oh, has a lawsuit been filed? Will the case be judged by an unbeliever? I did not know. Otherwise, meh.

I pay an accountant to do my taxes and an electrician to do my wiring, and I'll pay a lawyer to sort through the fine print should I ever need one (God forbid!), even if it happened to concern a contractual issue between friends. It's just expertise.

As to what sort of sense he has, I can't guess, except to observe that he often spoke off-the-cuff and had to back-pedal, so having a lawyer speak for him is arguably an improvement.[/quote]

About the lawyering, what you say makes sense to me. As you know, however, it is something that the Scriptures talk against. [/quote]

Where? The Scripture speaks against taking your fellow believers to court. It says absolutely nothing against having a lawyer (as the OCA and every other autocephalous church as well as most dioceses do).

Quote

Not a good place for a bishop to be--in contravention to the Holy Scriptures that he is supposed to be upholding. OTH, perhaps he is already thinking about quitting, becoming a regular guy?

What Scripture is Metropolitan Jonah 'in contravention of'? i.e., can you substantiate that claim, particularly given how quick you are to demand such of others?

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Can you imagine if he had hired a canonical Orthodox Christian to be his lawyer? How might it have further complicated relations between the jurisdictions if a lawyer from the GOA, for example, were to advise and represent him?

First, he should not have lawyered up. Second, it just looks and smells bad when he goes outside Orthodoxy. Does he not have any sense of ecclesiastical propriety?

Oh, has a lawsuit been filed? Will the case be judged by an unbeliever? I did not know. Otherwise, meh.

I pay an accountant to do my taxes and an electrician to do my wiring, and I'll pay a lawyer to sort through the fine print should I ever need one (God forbid!), even if it happened to concern a contractual issue between friends. It's just expertise.

As to what sort of sense he has, I can't guess, except to observe that he often spoke off-the-cuff and had to back-pedal, so having a lawyer speak for him is arguably an improvement.

About the lawyering, what you say makes sense to me. As you know, however, it is something that the Scriptures talk against. Not a good place for a bishop to be--in contravention to the Holy Scriptures that he is supposed to be upholding. OTH, perhaps he is already thinking about quitting, becoming a regular guy?

The second point I made was to point out in the gentlest possible way that if you hold yourself up to be an Orthodox bishop, you do not cavort with the heterodox.

I'm not familiar with the verse that says, "If you have hired a lawyer, you have committed a lawsuit in your heart already." The Scriptures talk against bringing a case between Christians to be judged by an unbeliever, not against choosing another Christian to be your attorney. But we can agree that it is "not a good place for a bishop to be--in contravention to the Holy Scriptures that he is supposed to be upholding."

"CAVORT intransitive verb 1 to leap or dance about in a lively manner Cavort 2 to engage in extravagant behavior." Somehow, Met. Jonah doesn't strike me as the cavorting type. But I get your point. Have you addressed your concerns with Met. Jonah privately?

Frankly, my legal mind has a tough time finding a way to fit the relationship between an Orthodox bishop and his Orthodox jurisdiction into any legally cognizable construction of American contract law. I would be shocked if an American civil court in any secular jurisdiction were to find a basis for a sustainable cause of action which could be maintained under current case law and which could result in an award of monetary damages.